Turner v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Filing
21
ORDER directing as follows: (1) Petitioner's objection (Doc. # 20 ) is OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 19 ) is ADOPTED; (3) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED; (4) This action is dismissed with prejudice because the § 2255 motion was filed after the expiration of the applicable one-year period of limitation, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); (5) To the extent that Petitioner requests additional time to brief his objection, the request is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on March 31, 2015. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY PERRIE TURNER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-734-WKW
[WO]
ORDER
On February 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case (Doc. # 19), and Petitioner filed a timely objection (Doc. # 20). The court has
conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
In his objection, Petitioner reiterates the equitable-tolling arguments he
previously made to the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation addresses and
properly rejects those arguments.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.
Petitioner’s objection (Doc. # 20) is OVERRULED.
2.
The Recommendation (Doc. # 19) is ADOPTED.
3.
Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED.
4.
This action is dismissed with prejudice because the § 2255 motion
was filed after the expiration of the applicable one-year period of limitation, 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f).
5.
To the extent that Petitioner requests additional time to brief his
objection, the request is DENIED.
A separate judgment will be entered.
DONE this 31st day of March, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?